Figure 2: Power Angle (Relative) of Generators in Multi Generator Benchmark, What ETAP has shown in Validation Test Cases document is published in

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Figure 2: Power Angle (Relative) of Generators in Multi Generator Benchmark, What ETAP has shown in Validation Test Cases document is published in"

Robyn Armstrong
5 years ago
Views:

1 Who are we? IPE () is a nonprofit organization passionate about the power engineering industry. Our main mandate is to test and expose the different issues and dysfunctions of different power system simulation softwares. Please note that all of our tests are made available also on YouTube for transparency. Look for on YouTube to get access to our latest videos. Product ETAP, Manufacturer OTI (Operation Technology Inc), Version ETAP: 4,5,6,7.0,7.1, 7.5, 11, 11.1, 12.0,12.5,12.6, 14, 14.1,16.0 and especially 16.1 Revision All Versions/Revisions Operating system Windows 8 / 64 Bit System properties RAM: 8.00GB ETAP CASE-0243 Analysis Transient Stability Analysis detail Transient Stability, Initial Load Flow, Adaptive Newton Raphson Precision= ,Max No. of Iteration =9999, Events Short circuit in an Overhead Line, Wrong Angle of Generator Issue IEEE 9 Buses, Test Cases results in ETAP software does not match with validation cases ETAP is published in It s website Reason OTI/ETAP company has cheated in preparing validation Test Cases Proposed solution No ETAP CASE-0243 Overview: This case has been one of the analysis sample for evaluating ETAP software from version 4 to version Open IEEE 9 bus bar benchmark network from: C:\ETAP 1611\Example-Other\IEEE9BUS Figure 1: Power Angle (Relative) of Generators in Multi Generator Benchmark, Power System Control and Stability by Anderson and Fouad

2 Figure 2: Power Angle (Relative) of Generators in Multi Generator Benchmark, What ETAP has shown in Validation Test Cases document is published in ETAP website

Figure 3: Power Angle (Relative) of Generators for Multi Generator Benchmark, Running ETAP Transient stability Software from version 4.0 to 16.1(This PICTURE is results of ETAP 16.

3 Figure 3: Power Angle (Relative) of Generators for Multi Generator Benchmark, Running ETAP Transient stability Software from version 4.0 to 16.1(This PICTURE is results of ETAP 16.1) ETAP CASE-0243 Explanation1: Power Angle (Relative) of Generator G2 in Anderson and Fouad book benchmark: 88.5 Degree Power Angle (Relative) of Generator of Generator G2 in ETAP Validation Case No.4 document published in ETAP Website: 89.8 Degree Power Angle (Relative) of Generator of Generator G2 when we run same network in ETAP software from version 4.0 to ETAP 14.1: Degree This clearly proves that OTI/ETAP Company has cheated to show that results of ETAP transient stability software and Anderson and Fouad book benchmark are matching?! But actually ETAP software results and transient stability benchmark results has ( ) 12.6 Degree difference in results, but ETAP company has cheated to show that the difference is only ( ) 1.3 degree

4 Figure 4: Power Angle (Absolute) of Generators in Multi Generator Benchmark, Power System Control and Stability by Anderson and Fouad Figure 5: Power Angle (Absolute) of Generators in Multi Generator Benchmark, What ETAP has

Figure 6: Power Angle (Absolute) of Generators for Multi Generator Benchmark, Running ETAP Transient stability Software from version 4.0 to 16.1(This PICTURE is results of ETAP 16.

5 Figure 6: Power Angle (Absolute) of Generators for Multi Generator Benchmark, Running ETAP Transient stability Software from version 4.0 to 16.1(This PICTURE is results of ETAP 16.1) ETAP CASE-0243 Explanation2: Power Angle (Absolute) of Generators in Anderson and Fouad book benchmark: fully matches and converge to identical Degree at t=2 seconds Power Angle (Absolute) of Generator G2 in ETAP Validation Case No.4 document published in ETAP Website: ETAP website tries to shows that angles of generators are converging at t=2 seconds Power Angle (Absolute) of Generator G2 when we run same network in ETAP software from version 4.0 to ETAP 16.1: ETAP software, generators angles still does not converge or match at 120 cycle (2 seconds) This clearly proves that OTI/ETAP Company has cheated to show that results of ETAP transient stability software and Anderson and Fouad book benchmark are matching?! But actually ETAP software results and transient stability benchmark results are showing totally different angles at 120 cycle (2 seconds), but ETAP Company has cheated to show that the difference is negligible and the angles are converging at 120 cycle (2 seconds) We just have a question? How ETAP Company can compensate damages and loss of projects due to inaccurate results of ETAP software in last 15 years??? We hereby questioning the integrity of engineering teams of companies has done auditing on ETAP software, we mean what has been announced in ETAP website at unfortunately we are seeing a number of big organizations has done quality auditing of ETAP software and none of them has notices such big mistakes and holes in ETAP Transient Stability Algorithm from version 4.0 to 16.1 or may the situation is worst, they these problems in ETPA software, but because of their relation with ETAP/OTI company they hide it?????????????

Figure 1: Power Angle (Relative) of Generators in Multi Generator Benchmark, Power System Control and Stability by Anderson and Fouad

Figure 1: Power Angle (Relative) of Generators in Multi Generator Benchmark, Power System Control and Stability by Anderson and Fouad Who are we? IPE () is a nonprofit organization passionate about the power engineering industry. Our main mandate is to test and expose the different issues and dysfunctions of different power system simulation